Bloody hell! At the end of the day, after all the bitching back and forth, it ends up I’m saying: “Sprinting is a hind brain activity.” And you’re saying (and documenting): “Effective sprinting INVOLVES the hind brain and this interaction results in much faster neural impulses.”
Everything you have quoted here, with the exception of your slant, is in support of what I’ve been trying to say.
“When performances become automated so no conscious effort is needed, the neural impulses between motor areas of brain and motor units occurs much faster.”
EXACTLY!
Conscious effort, surely something everyone can agree is in the forebrain, will disrupt the performance enhancing interaction you describe.
It’s my job to relay anecdotal experiences. If you want to add a scientific explanation to support an observation made by me (and every other sprint coach worth his salt in the last 100 years), by all means go ahead.
I guess I was wondering what all the arguing was about too. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Charlie say that sprinting was exclusively a hind brain activity (i.e. no forebrain activity). I think that he was simply emphasizing the involvement of the hind brain in making the action automatic, smooth and relaxed - and thereby faster.
His discussion of the use of sprint drills is a perfect example. As certain actions and specific elements of sprinting mechanics are not trained optimally when a coach provides corrections, tips and cues for an athlete running at full speed, we use drills to correct these elements in isolation. We see a problem with running technique, pull the athlete aside and then get them to perform a simple drill that will assist in correcting the technical issue.
Charlie has said that we are better off doing an isolated drill slowly with good technique - with simple instruction from the forebrain to provide confusion free execution - then speeding it up with the goal of maintaining optimal technique. After repeating a particular drill with error free execution for a period of time, the athlete then returns to full speed sprinting - and little forebrain activity with regards to the correction - with the appropriate correction being made. Although there is some forebrain activity, the smooth application of the technique has been acquired and implemented by the hind brain.
I would say this is no different than what is being done by a high level pianist, where there is little to no cognitive focus on individual notes - everything is automatic. If the pianist where to think of each individual note, the entire piece would fall apart and become disjointed, with the speed and fluidity of execution being affected.
"Supporting reflexes: ( stretch reflex, flexion reflex, crossed extensor reflex), work between motor neurons at the spinal cord and muscle fibers. Voluntary movements don’t function at this level. "
Would hind brain sprinting be the “hindest” during max speed since it is more elastic?
Good question! My simple answer would be yes, as this would bring additional emphasis to the importance of automatic action and relaxation, though the quote you give from Sharmer shows it to be as between motor neurons at the spinal cord and muscle fibers. At least we can agree that “Voluntary movements don’t function at this level”, so any voluntary input into the process during ground contact is detremental.
What is marketable is that max speed is the most “intricate”, meaning all of the gurus focus so much on ways to improve it that they may in fact slow down athletes…this is now the same for the “drive phase” since people want to get into the details of transitions by applying all this bogus head position stuff.
I have found that my coaching is weaker in the 50-80 meter zone because that span is where and athlete needs to be patient and allow the race to come to him or her. By 80 meters they are “just” trying to maintain relaxation but 5-6 seconds in the race it is still evolving so this change will cause a state of confusion because the sense of time will be odd. At max speed things tend to slow down… I don’t know…
You’ve hit on the essence of the problem. Simplicity works- but doesn’t sell! We’ve just seen how it pisses off the sprinters on the one side, who want more elaborate cues and the scientists on the other, who want more elaborate explanations. Leave the “cues” for the simple drills and the elaborate explanations for the scientists.
Goodlord clemson.
“I said to myself, He’s coming,’ Ben related after the race, and I did my best to hold form. … Like professional pianists, who simply know where the keys are, the great sprinters are going too fast to dwell on technique, aside from an occasional spot-check on one or two key components - in Ben’s case, his hand position.” (C. F. SPEED TRAP)
Would it be correct to say that SPRINTING is hindbrain, but RACING may not be.
Racing IS sprinting, pure and simple. The key to success in the race is to do what you have already done a thousand times before in practice. The day you decide to do something special is the day you blow it.
I’m confused. Wouldn’t the “spot-check” on hand position be forebrain?
What would brain imaging studies (e.g FMRI) teach us on this matter (not that there is much left to debate)? Obviosly no-one can run 100m whle being scanned but can extrapolations be made from other movements?
I remember a possibly relelvant study, involving a finger tapping sequence.
Participants were given an unknown sequence of keys to learn, while being scanned using FMRI. At first while they were learning the sequence, brain scans showed a large amount of activity through many regions of the brain. After one hour brain scans showed limited acivity (in the hind brain). The participants were then given a new sequence to learn, and there was renewed activity all over the brain again. Any other similar standout studies?
That may be a reason why, at least according to what I’ve read, Soviet weightlifters didn’t peak for meets; they competed often, integrating that into their training.
I’ve often seen athletes attempt to peak, miss the peak/taper, and do worse. Also, we’ve all seen athletes try to “dig down for something extra” for a big race/event, and not do as well as they could have.
Of course. But you can’t correct a bad habit by doing the same thing you always do. It can also be helpful to concentrate on something in the upper body rather than worrying about the intricate art form your lower body is currently engaged in.
[QUOTE=Charlie Francis]<snip>Conscious effort, surely something everyone can agree is in the forebrain, will disrupt the performance enhancing interaction you describe.<>
It’s just occured to me, both in reading this thread and in thinking about my own training, that I don’t let the hindbrain or whatever the neurophysiology is do the work, that I use a lot of conscious effort(in juggling). Thus slowing me down.
So my question is, how does one train that ability? I get that for 10 rings I’m not going to have time to think, and will need the “autospeed” but how does one train the ability to let the hindbrain take over, esp. in a complex movement? The example of repeated effort at lower speed is salient here, but is it enough? Do you just repeat drills and “allow” yourself to get faster? Are there mental things to do to facilitate the bodymind’s ability to run the show correctly?
Yes, such checks would be- this is why such input must be kept simple and very limited.
Practice makes permanent, If you repeat a skill it will become more automatic, automatically! This will happen if you are performing a skill consistently, you don’t have to worry about it. You have to worry about undoing incorrectly learned movements(, because then you have to ‘unlearn’ them with much effort (as they are now habit)), which are better learned correctly in the first place, because they will be automatically made permanent!!
I fail to see what that has to do with my question. I’m trying to get faster, not engrain the same old, and I have to be able to make slight adjustments, too.
Your question is not clear, how does one train what ability?
You cannot alter your cognitive processes if I am understanding you. You cannot ‘train’ the process by which your brain learns movements. Unless you are consciously working on changing an aspect of a skill, it will become more and more a habit (if performed consistently).
And remember to only work on one aspect of technique at a time, or you will have the problem with ‘juggling’ that you mentioned. The problem is to choose which problem to work on first! While you work on technique flaw A, technique flaw B becomes more deeply ingrained, and harder to undo later! I’m sure all coaches can relate to this?
For example, when I play golf, I usually have about 5-6 swing faults to work on when I am out of practice. Theory and experience tells me I can only work on one fault at a time (over the period of days) and succesfully improve. So I choose what I consider to be the biggest flaw, and work on that, then when that is fixed, I work on the second biggest flaw, and eventually I am hitting that ball as I want each time. Is any of this helping?
JimboUKdec:<>Your question is not clear, how does one train what ability?<>
Me: The ability to perform movements “unconsciously”(and thus potentially faster) rather than with deliberate controlled conscious effort.
<>You cannot alter your cognitive processes if I am understanding you. You cannot ‘train’ the process by which your brain learns movements. <>
Are you sure? What do you base this on?
<> Unless you are consciously working on changing an aspect of a skill, it will become more and more a habit (if performed consistently).<>
Definitely, that’s one of the things I’m concerned with, I don’t want to engrain my current speed, but rather get faster.
<>And remember to only work on one aspect of technique at a time, or you will have the problem with ‘juggling’ that you mentioned. <>
Um, apparently you didn’t get the bit about me being a juggler. That’s what I’m training.
<> The problem is to choose which problem to work on first! While you work on technique flaw A, technique flaw B becomes more deeply ingrained, and harder to undo later! I’m sure all coaches can relate to this? <>
Not sure it becomes more deeply engrained, but I agree that you can only focus on one element at a time.
<>For example, when I play golf, I usually have about 5-6 swing faults to work on when I am out of practice. Theory and experience tells me I can only work on one fault at a time (over the period of days) and succesfully improve. So I choose what I consider to be the biggest flaw, and work on that, then when that is fixed, I work on the second biggest flaw, and eventually I am hitting that ball as I want each time. Is any of this helping?<>
OK, that makes sense, but the difficulty is that I have to develop progressively higher throws, while increasing throw frequency, as I climb the ladder of numbers. Doing my current number over and over will only, IMO, engrain that speed and keep me from getting faster/more powerful. So I’m wondering how to “tell” myself to let it become automatic? Drills, okay. Anything else?
Thanks for the input.
"Supporting reflexes: ( stretch reflex, flexion reflex, crossed extensor reflex), work between motor neurons at the spinal cord and muscle fibers. Voluntary movements don’t function at this level. "
Would hind brain sprinting be the “hindest” during max speed since it is more elastic?
If we consider the three levels of sprinters below I think we can shed some light on the subject.
- Beginner- focus is on what to do
- Intermediate-focus is on how to do it
- Elite- when automated no conscious effort is needed.
The above scenario does raise the question " why is so much coaching based on conscious thinking". One of the reasons is that athletes simply forget the feel of being automated due to competing responses-(crowd, new environment, perceived pressure). This is where cueing has its role in helping athletes execute specific techniques when under new stress’s. The obvious solution to this problem is to practice in conditions that are similar to competition day, this means giving the athlete pre-knowledge of most variables.
Another issue with cueing is that it tends to focus on the movement itself rather then the effect of the movement, current research has found that focusing on the effect of movement on the apparatus produced larger magnitudes of force. In terms of sprinting this means focusing on the body itself will interfere with the automatic control processes. This will drive Charlie nuts, however according to most motor learning research it seems that focusing on the track by pushing against it will enhance performance.
I don’t agree with the motor learning theorists ideas about pushing against the track because Newton’s third laws tells us that the reaction force occurs at the instant of touchdown therefore any conscious effort to slam the foot down will cause additional breaking forces.
To answer your question, sprinting at max velocity wouldn’t not be so much more hind brain but more automated, this means that the elastic release of energy is not disrupted by conscious thoughts or a conscious attempt to modify technique. Most athletes including the very elite still have some conscious thoughts even though it’s contrary to the concept of automatic performance. Even Michael Johnson use to break the 400m into four zones with specific cues as race plans. Only machines can really be automated, we can aim to be automated in our performances however maybe it would be better to reduce the amounts of conscious thoughts as opposed to absolutely remove them.